NYT: Some US citizens detained as "illegal immigrants"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Good reminder of the importance of the ACLU (inexplicably hated by the FoxNews crowd). In both the cases described the citizens were only released when the ACLU turned up their passports.

Agreed. I don't always agree with the ACLU but the VAST majority of the time they do wonderful work.
 
who is an idiot in this statement? People who voted for obama? Im sure he singlehandly checks the immigration status of every detained person to make sure its all good.

Yes. I believe that Obama creates laws in a vacuum and single-handedly enforces them. You're lucky I'm the dumbest person in the universe or you would have come off sounding needlessly defensive to the point of being delusional.
 
Gaborn political thread deja vu. Overzealous and hyperbolic Obama bashing turning into stale Ron Paul discussion.
 
The Department of Homeland Security has to be such a huge mess.

It seems like when federal agencies order local police to detain people it can end up really fucking over a person's rights, because the local police don't have the personal responsibility if things go wrong, and the federal agency is a bureaucracy that can't handle things in a timely manner.

What happens when these federal agencies get even more underfunded due to austerity budgets?

Yeah.

edit: btw, has anyone else read Zeitoun? It's really disgusting what kind of things are possible.
 
He actually wants to render those cases null and void in one stroke via legislation. 1950 America was best America.

Right, I've seen the bill, but it's not even remotely constitutional. Even if he managed to get it passed it wouldn't do much. His appointments to the supreme court, on the other hand...

(1880s America is probably more the golden age he has in mind, though. Way too much regulation and welfare state in the 50s)

Ron Paul wants to "secure the border" and "enforce our immigration laws" - i.e. deport people. There is no reason whatsoever to think he'd be handling this any differently.

Ron Paul also wants to undo Lawrence v. Texas, but I'm assured we shouldn't care about that either for some reason.

I think there's plenty reason to think Paul wouldn't approve of such measures. Agreeing with the goal is not the same as agreeing with the means. His support of restrictive immigration policy is a notable violation of his otherwise consistent-to-the-point-of-insanity non-aggression principle, but it does not necessarily entail disrespecting standard criminal protections against wrongful imprisonment. Given his support of procedural protection of civil liberties, we have every reason to suspect that he would not view this as legitimate means to the end of protecting the borders.
 
Right, I've seen the bill, but it's not even remotely constitutional. Even if he managed to get it passed it wouldn't do much. His appointments to the supreme court, on the other hand...

No it isn't. Congress has the power to provide for the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. It may be unconstitutional but it isn't clearly unconstitutional.

I think there's plenty reason to think Paul wouldn't approve of such measures. Agreeing with the goal is not the same as agreeing with the means. His support of restrictive immigration policy is a notable violation of his otherwise consistent-to-the-point-of-insanity non-aggression principle, but it does not necessarily entail disrespecting standard criminal protections against wrongful imprisonment. Given his support of procedural protection of civil liberties, we have every reason to suspect that he would not view this as legitimate means to the end of protecting the borders.

No, we do not. Ron Paul supports federalism, and takes the standard GOP line on "enforcing the immigration laws." That necessarily leads to situations like here, where state authorities detain people initially on suspicion of some state-law crime, and the Feds then have an opportunity to check if they should be deported. There is no reason, apart from his rote and hollow invocations about liberty, to think that Ron Paul would have any substantive objections to the Secure Communities program.
 
Well, it's a good thing that we might be able to lawfully obtain American citizens soon so we won't have to worry about this mess! /sarcasm
 
I'd detain her alright...

I'd detain the fuck outta her.


Fuck out BS "laws", the older I get the more I realize how ass-backwards our country is
 
The article states that in the two cases mentioned they were flagged in databases.
So not racial profiling.

because immigration officials had failed once before to recognize his citizenship, mistakenly deporting him to Mexico in 1996. His records were not corrected.

Okay, so he was detained because he was flagged in a database because of racial profiling?
 
No, we do not. Ron Paul supports federalism, and takes the standard GOP line on "enforcing the immigration laws." That necessarily leads to situations like here, where state authorities detain people initially on suspicion of some state-law crime, and the Feds then have an opportunity to check if they should be deported. There is no reason, apart from his rote and hollow invocations about liberty, to think that Ron Paul would have any substantive objections to the Secure Communities program.

He might not have substantive objections to the program, but he would abolish the department of homeland security, without which the program cannot exist.
 
These people should stop bitching. If they didn't do anything wrong they wouldn't have had something to worry about. Not like they got UAV'd.

Right guys?
 
I'd let her illegally enter my pants...... yes... I think.
but this is scary for someone like me who is not yet a citizen (only permanent resident) forget about affording the application for citizenship.
 
Okay, so he was detained because he was flagged in a database because of racial profiling?
Well we have no details of that case so it would be pretty presumptuous to assume racial profiling, in the current case it wasn't. As for the girl she entered the us on her Spanish passport at some point.
 
These people should stop bitching. If they didn't do anything wrong they wouldn't have had something to worry about. Not like they got UAV'd.

Right guys?

"Any society that would bitch about giving up a little liberty in the hopes of gaining a little security will lose their jobs, and be fraught with brown people."
 
Fuck secure communities, such a terrible policy, and this is exactly what its critics warned will happen.

Obama - doubling down on Bush's dumbest policies since 2009.

frontline kinda painted it like he was doing it so he could get republican backing for broad immigration reform, but im sure its just spin
 
Gaborn political thread deja vu. Overzealous and hyperbolic Obama bashing turning into stale Ron Paul discussion.

To be fair it isn't Gaborn bringing up Ron Paul. it's like an instinct on this board.

Obama does something stupid, try to defend it. Can't defend it, spin it. Can't spin it, bring up Ron Paul.
 
To be fair it isn't Gaborn bringing up Ron Paul. it's like an instinct on this board.

Obama does something stupid, try to defend it. Can't defend it, spin it. Can't spin it, bring up Ron Paul.

I'm also not bashing Obama with hyperbole. I still think his decision to assassinate an American citizen is beyond fucked up though.
 
To be fair it isn't Gaborn bringing up Ron Paul. it's like an instinct on this board.

Obama does something stupid, try to defend it. Can't defend it, spin it. Can't spin it, bring up Ron Paul.

Obama may be illegally incarcerating and murdering American citizens, but at least he doesn't give careful consideration to the gold standard.
 
To be fair it isn't Gaborn bringing up Ron Paul. it's like an instinct on this board.

Obama does something stupid, try to defend it. Can't defend it, spin it. Can't spin it, bring up Ron Paul.

The first person who brought up Ron Paul in this thread was a Ron Paul supporter. Nice try though at your own "spin."
 
Yeah, it's crazy for a man to NOT order the assassination of an American citizen.


He can't because he will never, ever be President of anything.

And obligatory offer of Scottish citizenship to the exhilarating Ms. campos.
 
While he may not be President, he is and will remain exponentially more significant than the wholly irrelevant Scotland.
 
I'm also not bashing Obama with hyperbole. I still think his decision to assassinate an American citizen is beyond fucked up though.

Would you be ok with him assassinating the citizens of other countries? How about other countries assassinating American citizens?
 
Obama may be *legally* incarcerating and murdering American citizens, but at least he doesn't give careful consideration to the gold standard.

Fixed.

Edit: I'll just point out that I wasn't defending him in any way just pointing out it is now law. The Obama administration actually specifically asked for protection of American citizens be removed. It wasn't originally in there.
 
Fixed.

Edit: I'll just point out that I wasn't defending him in any way just pointing out it is now law. The Obama administration actually specifically asked for protection of American citizens be removed. It wasn't originally in there.

Is it retroactive to past actions? I'd assume he wanted his future actions protected knowing full well that to this point they were potentially not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom